I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I intended.
I intended that there would be a minimum of 11 votes _in favour_, not simply 11
votes. The reason being that otherwise, if you oppose something, you are
incentivised _not to vote_ which is a disincentive to participation we should
avoid.
As formulated today, we would need 14 votes _in favour_.
On 17/06/2020, 19:13, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
Sorry, I was a bit vague there.
I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple
majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For
example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11
binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass,
so in that case 8 +1's.
Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority
> (I am) and calling a new vote?
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there
> are
> > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't
> > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as
> > formulated, either, for the record.
> >
> > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just
> wanted
> > to check.
> >
> > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low
> > watermark in vote participation (not approval).
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there
> are
> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I
> don't
> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as
> > > formulated, either, for the record.
> > >
> > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good
> thing to
> > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without
discussing
> > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded
> to,
> > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from
> poorly
> > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes
> > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and
> avoiding
> > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather
> than a
> > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is
> > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community
> > > before a formal vote.
> > >
> > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote
> > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed
> lowering the
> > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if
> you
> > > have
> > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a
> > > super-majority of
> > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus.
> > >
> > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super
> > > majority
> > > of votes sounds far more reasonable.
> > >
> > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely
to
> > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the
roll
> > > call,
> > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem.
In
> > > fact it
> > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to
> reach
> > > the
> > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the
roll
> > > call.
> > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to
> > > administer.
> > >
> > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> > > bened...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would
> like
> > > after
> > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I
> raised
> > > this as
> > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple
> > > majority of
> > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the
> > > "active
> > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can
> > > consider
> > > > that a strong consensus.
> > > >
> > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely
to
> > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the
> roll
> > > call,
> > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem.
> In
> > > fact it
> > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to
> reach
> > > the
> > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the
> roll
> > > call.
> > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to
> > > administer.
> > > >
> > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this:
> > > >
> > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an
> email
> > > to dev@
> > > > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on
> the
> > > project
> > > > and
> > > > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This
> is
> > > > strictly an
> > > > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability
> to
> > > > participate
> > > > during this time window. A super-majority of this count
> becomes
> > > the
> > > > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a
motion,
> > > with new
> > > > PMC
> > > > members added to the calculation.
> > > >
> > > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in
roll
> > > call, and
> > > > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do
> > > something,
> > > > it's another to follow through. A glance at any active
> community
> > > > member's
> > > > review board (including my own) will confirm that.
> > > >
> > > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it
> > > doesn't
> > > > seem
> > > > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20
votes.
> > > On the
> > > > low
> > > > end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the
> high
> > > end,
> > > > 14.
> > > > On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail.
> > > >
> > > > Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased
> participation
> > > and a
> > > > higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set
the
> > > bar so
> > > > high
> > > > we can't get anything done.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone else share this sentiment?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell
> > > > <dcapw...@apple.com.invalid>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 nb
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña <
> > > > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 nb
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne <
> > > > lebre...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1 (binding)
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Sylvain
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer <
> > > > > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +1 (binding)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson <
> > > > marc...@apache.org>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (
> > > s...@beobal.com)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> +1 nb
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding)
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I propose the following:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at
> end of
> > > day
> > > > > >> 6/23/20)
> > > > > >>>>>>>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we
> > > didn't get
> > > > on
> > > > > >> gdoc
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. committer and community votes are considered
> > > advisory /
> > > > > >>>> non-binding
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Any objections / revisions to the above?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ~Josh
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
